It is the second court action from the Australian Competition &
Consumer Commission (ACCC) in recent times to focus on products alleging
specialised treatment, after the High Court upheld a $6 million fine against the makers of Nurofen for its range of targeted pain relief
The ACCC is alleging GSK
Healthcare, together with the previous owner of Voltaren, Novartis, made
false or misleading representations during a period of more than six years.
The two manufacturers claimed Voltaren Osteo Gel was specifically
formulated to treat osteoarthritic conditions, when it contained the
same active ingredients as its cheaper Voltaren Emulgel.
The recommended retail price set by the manufacturers was 11% higher for the 150g Voltaren Osteo Gel, but price sampling by the watchdog found
differences in pricing as high as 33%.
One store sampled was selling 150g Voltaren Osteo Gel for $7.50 more than
the 150g Emulgel at $29.
The two companies allegedly "engaged in a deliberate commercial strategy to
differentiate the products in a way that was likely to mislead consumers,"
says Rod Sims, chair of the ACCC.
"The product has an identical formulation to Emulgel, and both products are
equally effective in treating not only osteoarthritis, but also a range of
other pain conditions," he adds.
GSK Healthcare, which has owned Voltaren's portfolio of products since
2016, claims it updated the packaging of Osteo Gel in March, and that it
does have a different design.
"While it contains the same effective formulation as Voltaren Emulgel, we
believe the design of the packaging helps people with osteoarthritis open
the cap more easily and the instructions for use reflect the TGA approved
instructions for use in osteoarthritis," a spokesperson says. "We were of the view the product
name reflects this."
Novartis could not provide a comment at the time of publication.
The claims that Voltaren Osteo Gel was specifically formulated to treat
osteoarthritis have been made since October 2010 up until March 2017.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, a
publication order, the imposition of a compliance program and costs.